The coming week will mark the first year of war in Ukraine. This war has shaken up some of our certainties about peace and the solidity of our democracies. Sociologist Jean Viard points out that this war “puts an end to something that had lasted for about 70 years”.
Jean Viard, sociologist and research director at the CNRS today deciphers the year of war that has just passed in Ukraine, and its implications for Europe and the world. Friday, February 24, 2023, it will be exactly one year since Russian troops entered Ukraine, and deluges of missiles and bombs devastated this territory, not to mention thousands of anti-personnel mines, scattered throughout the country. The coming week will mark the first year of war in Ukraine. A conflict that has shaken up our certainties about peace and our democracies.
franceinfo: Does this war put an end to a form of recklessness in this area?
John Viard: But it puts an end to something that had lasted for about 70 years. In the meantime, there was still Algeria, there was still Yugoslavia, but basically it was the idea that wars – and this was also true for pandemics – were a bit for the not very developed countries, if I am a little caricatural. When there are wars in Eritrea, wars in the Congo, well, we look at that from afar, when all the same there were 5 million deaths in the Congo, not to mention Rwanda. Basically, the idea is that we got out of this period, thanks to education, technical progress, etc., and it’s basically still the same mistake.
It’s always this idea that when we develop, when we go to school, when we are harmonious, we are no longer going to kill each other. The answer is no. Wars are part of the dynamics of societies like pandemics. And the problem is to anticipate them, so that they try not to take place. And moreover, in Europe, what is very complicated is that you have countries like Germany, which are disciples of Kant, and which thought that “sweet commerce” was going to pacify everything. Look at the relationship they developed with Russia, to try to ease tensions with Mr. Putin, thinking that trade was the beginning of the democratic process. We also thought that for China, up to Tiananmen Square.
We say to ourselves: we are going to make exchanges, we are doing business, people are going to live better, they will want to travel, they will no longer be too keen on a dictatorship. And so there, we realize that war is part of societies. We may be able to avoid war, but we can’t avoid preparing for it, it’s not the same thing, and above all being mentally ready for combat. What the Ukrainians show us wonderfully. The way they defend themselves against the Russian aggression, the way they mount pressure, I was going to say, the girls, the boys, etc., it’s absolutely extraordinary. It gives a powerful “common” to Ukraine.
This war is a tragedy, I’m not going to praise it, obviously, but at the same time Europe is saying to itself that it cannot be a power if there is no armies, if we don’t scare people, and if we don’t tell certain totalitarian neighbours, whether it’s Russia, sometimes Turkey or China: be careful, we’re going to count in the fighting. And so at that time, obviously, the goal is obviously to return to peace through this power.
You talk about the strength of Europe, its cohesion. But is it these shortages, this soaring gas and electricity prices, that has relaunched a discourse on the independence of countries?
Yes, but then, I think we have to say to people who want to go towards that: turn a little towards England, look at what is happening with Brexit, look at the tensions between the different regions of the Great -Brittany. England is a federation. Realize the economic collapse of England, and the fact that currently more than 60% of Britons dream of returning to Europe. Europe has established itself as a power. There can be discourses on what we put in common. I believe that Brexit united the European Union for a few decades.
The images of tanks, of mobilized soldiers, this showdown between a rigid, closed Putin and a Zelensky in fatigues, it also gives the feeling that war is a story of muscular men, a little against stream of current speeches. Did that also shake up some images?
It’s true that war is a masculine culture and has always been a masculine culture. I’m not saying it always will be, but women have an essential role. First of all, there are some who are in combat, the others work to feed the soldiers, take care of the children, etc., so there is an important role, but it is true that this refers to positions that are a bit traditional. Moreover, most of the Ukrainian refugees who have left Ukraine are often mothers with children, and the men are often in combat.
So, does this refer us to a historical structure of social functions? Certainly. Will it reinforce them, because basically, it puts back the side of the man-soldier and the woman-mother, which is a bit of historical caricature? There are all these subjects, but it’s true that it gives this image and that you have to be very careful about it. I believe that indeed we must tell ourselves that violence is not only men, and that it is important that collective violence be controlled by everyone, including precisely so as not to use it .